HL Deb 30 October 1958 vol 212 cc75-81

3.5 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to implement the undertakings given by the Lord President of the Council in his statement in this House on 23rd July regarding British nationals expelled from Egypt.]

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD HAILSHAM)

My Lords, since my statement on 23rd July, discussions have taken place at the Treasury with representatives of the British Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society, the Jewish Refugees Committee, the Maltese Communities in Egypt and the Association of (Former) British Officials of the Egyptian Government. Representations have also been received from a number of individuals. All these representations have been fully considered. The action which Her Majesty's Government have decided to take is as follows.

First, the scale of loans under the existing ex-gratia loans scheme, as announced in this House on 15th July, 1957, will be increased in all cases where reckonable assets exceed £2,500. The amount of the increase will vary from £200 at the bottom end of the scale to £5,000 at the top. Secondly, those assets in private business which are comparable with reckonable private assets will in future be included in the scheme. Thirdly, a number of modifications will be made in the scheme to remove some of the inequalities of treatment as between different classes of case. This extension of the scheme will be put into effect immediately. The particulars of it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In addition, Her Majesty's Government have decided that certain loans should be made to the officials who were dismissed by the Egyptian Government in 1951 and that £100,000 should be made available for this purpose. As I pointed out in this House on 23rd July, 1958, their claims are not suitable for inclusion in the present ex-gratia loans scheme. The method of distribution of this sum will therefore be decided by Her Majesty's Government after further consultation with the representatives of those concerned.

Following are the particulars referred to in Lord Hailsham's Answer:

1. The scale of loans will be revised thus:
Reckonable Assets Existing scheme New scheme
Upto£E2,000 70 per cent. 70 per cent.
£E2,001–£E2,500 £1,500 £1,500
£E2,501–£E3,000 £1,600 £1,800
£E3,001–£E4,000 £2,000 £2,200
£E4,001–£E5,000 as above £2,500
£E5,001–£E7,500 £2,700 £3,200
£E7,501–£E10,000 as above £4,000
£E10,001–£E15,000 £3,400 £5,500
£E15,001–£E20,000 £4,100 £7,500
£E20,001 and above £5,000 £10,000

2. Business Assets. Provided that an individual is in other respects eligible for an ex-gratia loan, his tangible business assets will be reckonable for this purpose. Assets reckonable will be—

A notional division of the assets will be made in case of partnerships in accordance with the shares held by different partners.

3. Mortgaged Property will in future reckon up to its net value after taking the mortgage into account.

4. Mortgage Loans will in future be included in the scheme.

5. Those who did not leave Egypt as a result of events in 1956 because they were not resident there at the time.

These persons, if they are in the U.K., are already eligible for ex-gratia loans subject to a test of hardship applied by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board; if resident abroad, they have hitherto been outside the scope of the Board. In future the latter will benefit from the ex-gratia loans scheme on the same terms as if they were in the United Kingdom. Hardship will be assessed by the Board on the basis of consular reports or sworn affidavits.

6. Assets in Egypt of deceased British Persons. Where death occurred in Egypt, and provided that the British beneficiaries are refugees, loans are granted on production of the Will and Egyptian Probate or Letters of Administration. In the absence of these documents there is no clear title. Loans are also made to non-refugee widows on production of Will and Egyptian Probate or Letters of Administration, provided they prove hardship. In future the restriction of loans to widows will not apply, all cases being looked at on their merits.

Where death occurred in the United Kingdom widows alone are paid on production of Will and Probate taken out in this country (with a test of hardship if the widows are not refugees). Here again in future the restriction of loans to widows will not apply, all cases being looked at on their merits.

7. Assets not registered with the Foreign Office before 15th July, 1957. There must be some safeguard for the Exchequer in these cases. Where an application for a loan has been made, the applicant will be asked to submit a sworn affidavit concerning the circumstances of the late declaration. Cases will then be considered on their merits. Registrations will not, however, be accepted after to-day as qualifying for loans, though in very exceptional circumstances, for instance in the case of persons only now leaving Egypt, allowances may be made.

8. Money spent on fares. Those who paid their own fares to the United Kingdom are at a disadvantage compared with those whose fares were paid by the Swiss in return for an undertaking to repay, since refugees in the latter category have equivalently more assets left in Egypt against which to claim loans. It is proposed to rectify this anomaly by making an adjustment to the ex-gratia loan in cases where an individual has paid his own fare.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask him the following supplementary questions? In the first place, do I take it from his Answer that the proposals which he has just announced have been discussed with, and agreed or approved by, the representatives of the refugees from Egypt? Secondly, the noble Viscount said that meetings have taken place during this long period of three months with these various bodies. How many meetings took place, and were any proposals put forward to those people at those meetings or was it merely a question of the Government Listening to their case, which has already been stated a number of limes?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I was not present at any of these meetings and therefore I cannot without notice answer in detail what took place at them. All the bodies to which I referred in my original Answer were consulted, but obviously the policy which emerged is one for which the Government must take responsibility.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I should like to ask two questions, and the first is with regard to the dismissed officials of the former Government. Do I understand that the proposal is to have a separate loans scheme for them? That might be satisfactory if the loans were on account of compensation yet to be settled with the Egyptian Government, but it could hardly take the place of permanent compensation for the loss of their appointments. Secondly, while I think we must withhold judgment until we see what is proposed by the Minister in the document to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, at first sight it looks as if a good deal may be done for the richer section and very little for the poorer section.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, with regard to the first point, the proposals for the 1951 officials (if I may use that compendious phrase) are entirely without prejudice to the negotiations for full compensation, and the sum I have mentioned is not by any means the sum for which they are claiming; but that will depend upon how matters go in another field. As regards the second part of the question, the point, broadly speaking, is this. We have paid out under the existing loans scheme, as the justest thing that we could do, on the basis of the amount claimed and not on the ascertained amount of the claim, because we cannot ascertain the latter. At the lower end of the scale the point is reached at which a large proportion of the amount claimed has already been paid under the loans scheme. It is not therefore that those at the bottom of the scale have got less, but that they have already got more, which determines the form which this particular supplementary scheme has taken.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I cannot help feeling that the answer of the noble Viscount is a rather queer one. He will remember what he said on July 23. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211, col. 124]: … The correct procedure is for direct discussions between the appropriate interests and Her Majesty's Government through the Treasury. And he added later: No doubt machinery will evolve … during the course of the discussion. What he has said now is that he was not at the discussions and does not know how many meetings there were; he does not know what was discussed and, in any case, the form of help is a matter for the Government and not a matter for joint discussion between them and representatives of the claimants. Nearly four months have elapsed since we had this question before us, and that was at the end of almost two years' delay before. I cannot help feeling that he is not treating the House with great consideration in giving this very meagre information on a matter upon which many noble Lords feel deeply, and I cannot help feeling also that the time has come when a full discussion of this subject may be necessary.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, a full discussion would be welcomed by everybody, despite the difficulties, of which the noble Marquess is aware. When the noble Marquess comes to read what I said in answer to the supplementary question he will see that his suggestion is most unjust and has little relation to what I said. Of course, without notice I do not know how many individual meetings were held with about five different bodies, and quite clearly the noble Marquess would be the last to suppose that an announcement of policy must not be something for which the Government are responsible. That does not mean to say that we have not taken the opinion of the various bodies, which are not all the same, into account. I think that, when the noble Marquess reads what he has just said in connection with my answer to the supplementary, he will not be altogether satisfied that the fault lies all on my side.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Was this scheme put to the representatives of the claimants?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

So far as I know, this scheme, in the form in which I have announced it, coupled with the particulars to be published in Hansard, is put for the first time to Parliament, which I should have thought was the correct procedure. But it would not be true to say that the various possibilities which have emerged in this scheme have not been put to the various claimants. On the contrary, there have been consultations, and because they were long and with a number of bodies I cannot, without notice, commit myself in detail as to which were put to which. When the noble Marquess comes to read the answer in detail, he will see that it is a very long document, and, as I say, I could not commit myself in this House as to which details were put to which bodies of persons consulted. I think he will see when he comes to read the scheme that that would be an unreasonable question to put to me without notice.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not wish to misrepresent the noble Viscount, and I promise that I will read with the greatest care the statement which I understand is to be circulated. But the impression that I and other noble Lords got was that these proposals were not discussed, and that this is the first time they have been divulged. I should like to reserve the position of myself and a great many others on the scope of the proposals, which seem to me still entirely inadequate with regard to certain sections.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I quite agree that the noble Marquess should reserve his position. Indeed, I would ask him to do nothing more, and to study the terms of the scheme carefully before he criticises it.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, with respect, I must refer to one point in the statement of the noble Viscount, and on this I should like to support my noble friend Lord Salisbury. Is it not a fact that the noble Viscount said that discussions took place? I understand that "discussion" means discussion between two parties, but as I understand it from his statement to-day, all that has happened is that the claimants have stated their case and the Government have given a decision. Does the noble Viscount really think that that is a discussion?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I have no reason to believe that there were not discussions, and I have told the House that there were. If my noble friend is seriously suggesting that a discussion is a discussion only if the claimants agree to everything that is said, it is not a view that I should care to endorse.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount a question? I think that he spoke about a further £5,000. Is that by way of a loan, or is it a grant?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The whole of the scheme, with the exception of the provision for the 1951 officials, is by way of an extension to the existing loans scheme.

LORD KILLEARN

What about the others, the non-1951 people?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Those are the ones I was talking about.

Back to